Player-Character Distinctions

[Thierry Michel]

Additionally, writers often talk about certain characters "getting away from them" or "writing themselves."  Characters seem to take on a life of their own and their previous established personality demands that the writer continue in the same vein, having the character do things that the writer may not necessarily want.  

Not directly relevant to the discussion, but just because I like this quote, from an interview of Nabokov

Q: E.  M.  Forster speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the course of his  novels.  Has  this ever  been  a  problem for you, or are you in complete command?

A: My knowledge of Mr. Forster's  works  is  limited  to  one novel  which  I  dislike; and anyway it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of  hand; it  is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that  trip to  India  or whereever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Not wishing to derail the thread any further, I point to Stephen King's On Writing and the description of his own writing style and the example of how Misery grew as a story.

Nabakov's comments are very much similar to a hard-core simulationist saying things about narrativism. It is not how he writes, there is no reason for him to comment on the phenomenom.

[Jack Aidley]

Nabakov's comments are very much similar to a hard-core simulationist saying things about narrativism.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things here, but isn't it the other way round? Nabakov's interested in the story and the characters do what they're damn well told because it's the story that matters (and story is what narrativism is about, yes?), whereas the 'King' view is simulationist since the characters do what they would if they were real?

[Thierry Michel]

[Nabokov's interested in the story and the characters do what they're damn well told because it's the story that matters

Nabokov is interested in the form (structure + style), but yes that's it.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things here, but isn't it the other way round? Nabakov's interested in the story and the characters do what they're damn well told because it's the story that matters (and story is what narrativism is about, yes?), whereas the 'King' view is simulationist since the characters do what they would if they were real?

Uh, OK. Perhaps a better example would be a buddist monk commenting on the Catholic concept of original sin or baptism? I wasn't saying that Nabakov is a simulationist, a fruitless pursuit IMO, but that his commenting on the phenomenom were not especially useful being that he has never done it. Like asking a virgin about sex.

[simon_hibbs]

A: My knowledge of Mr. Forster's  works  is  limited  to  one novel  which  I  dislike; and anyway it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of  hand; it  is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that  trip to  India  or whereever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves.[/i]

Actualy I think this is very relevent because it points up a major difference between roleplaying games and novels. A novel may be written in both ways - either through exploring the simulated behaviours of the characters in order to create story, or through engineering the responses and choices of the characters to realise a pre-planned story.

In roleplaying games the latter method is not realy available. Ok the GM can engineer a linear plot, but only at the price of excluding choices from the players, and hence limiting their ability to play their character. The ultimate extreme would be for the GM to ordain all character actions and eliminate actual roleplaying (and gaming) altogether.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Ok the GM can engineer a linear plot, but only at the price of excluding choices from the players, and hence limiting their ability to play their character. The ultimate extreme would be for the GM to ordain all character actions and eliminate actual roleplaying (and gaming) altogether.

I've termed such a potential play mode Participationism, or it's termed Illusionism if it's done secretly. If the players are soley audience, then this is called Storytelling (in the traditional sense, not to be confused with the RPG system of the same name), and falls outside any definition I'm aware of for RPGs.  

These exist, and the only question is to the rarity of Participationism. Illusionism is well recognized, and Storytelling is ubiquitous of course (given that TV, Movies, and books all could fall under it).

Mike

[Reprisal]

I think Reprisal (has anyone asked you your real name yet? oh, welcome to the Forge) attempts to distinguish authoring characters from playing them on a basis which for me at least is too pragmatic: how will it affect game flow. I think Jonathan has dealt with this pretty well. Rep, you're playing the wrong games for your group. You need something that lets them play characters who aren't joined at the hip--something like Sorcerer, in which they're tied by drivers that are going to bring them into conflict with each other, or Alyria, where they're all part of the story before it begins because they're connected to the core issue; or (dare I say) Multiverser, where they only matter to each other insofar that they want to matter to each other, and are otherwise quite free to do whatever they wish. Your players are looking to get out of the box, and your games are trying to keep them in it. Get a new box.

Thanks for the welcome, my name is John. You're quite right about the basis in which I'm approaching the issue, and it's not the first time I've been called too pragmatic -- but for altogether different reasons, of course. A new system like Sorcerer does seem like an interesting idea, but at this point my group seems to only want to play one of two games, none of which I'm particularly interested in or presently involved with at this point: Shadowrun and D&D:3E. In essence, they've been choosing the box fairly regularly after several years, so I'm guessing it has to do with either the way my GMing interacts with their expectations or their hesitation in regards to a new system. Perhaps they're looking for a little bit more of the "beer and pretzels" type game, but I'm not entirely sure since only one of my fellows seems to be wanting/able to articulate the issue in any complex way.

I've been reading up on the kickers in Sorcerer, and I'm finding them quite brilliant and wondering why no one else has done this sort of thing before -- the mark of a truly great innovation, no? Perhaps they can be integrated into another system that we all agree upon if I can't scrape the credit together to order Sorcerer and manage to get it played. I'm more focused on trying to construct a good (set of) scenario(s) for a Heavy Gear campaign.

By the way, is there any accepted way here to differentiate the RPGs from other nouns? I've started to underline them like the titles of novels recently, is that a good way of doing it?

Thanks,

 - John.

[M. J. Young]

...at this point my group seems to only want to play one of two games, none of which I'm particularly interested in or presently involved with at this point: Shadowrun and D&D:3E. In essence, they've been choosing the box fairly regularly after several years, so I'm guessing it has to do with either the way my GMing interacts with their expectations or their hesitation in regards to a new system.

Here's a thought: contact Seth Ben-Ezra and ask him if he needs Legends of Alyria playtest groups still. If so, he'll send you a copy of the game, and you go to your gaming group and say,

Hey, guys, we've got this really limited wonderful opportunity to playtest an unpublished game and give the author feedback before it goes to press. What do you say we put the other games aside for a few sessions and try this one?

Alyria is very different in concept, and will appear so right from the start--you begin by creating characters who are connected to each other through some core story conflict, decide on the moment that play picks up the story, and then parcel out the characters to the players. Characters can have kewl powerz, but these don't actually impact their effectiveness at all--an ordinary human character is in exactly the same position as someone with incredible psionics as far as influencing story direction and outcome. It could shake up the group significantly.

I've got a playtest going; you can read about it in the Young Family Playtest group thread in the Alyria forum down in Independent Games Forums. You could, if you like, jumpstart your group by using our storymap and characters (all the information is there), or by using Seth's prepared scenario, but we found creating the starting point got us really interested in play because we became excited about the characters and where this was going to go.

By the way, is there any accepted way here to differentiate the RPGs from other nouns? I've started to underline them like the titles of novels recently, is that a good way of doing it?

I don't think it matters. I try to italicize mine, but frequently just type them (particularly when I'm doing a lot of typing). Historically, underlining became the method of highlighting text because typewriters could not italicize; that it continues to be used online is a throwback, but can be confusing in online work, since hyperlinks are (by default which may be overridden in design) usually underlined.

Whatever you use will be fine.

--M. J. Young